Posted
by
CowboyNeal
on Friday April 21, 2006 @07:48AM
from the forced-attention-spans dept.

WebHostingGuy writes "A patent application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says researchers of the Netherland-based consumer electronics company have created a technology that could let broadcasters freeze a channel during a commercial, so viewers wouldn't be able to avoid it. Philips acknowledged that this technology might not sit well with consumers and suggested in its patent filing that consumers be allowed to avoid the feature if they paid broadcasters a fee."

No, the GP's right. Yes, the law may mandate such a technology being introduced (though har-fucking-har to the politicians who pass it - not being able to copy something is still sufficiently involving complicated technologies that politicians cannot be held to account over it, but your TV's controls freezing because a commercial comes on due to a legal mandate? I think people will NOTICE that), but you're talking, ultimately, about the end of TV if this ever takes off.

"..but your TV's controls freezing because a commercial comes on due to a legal mandate? I think people will NOTICE that"

I concur. I am currently paying $50/mo for mediocre programming on only about 4 channels that I actually watch when I do watch TV. The first time I notice I cannot change channels due to this is going to coincide with the exact same moment I find something else to waste my time on and cancel my cable subscription. Fuck that. The DVDs that force me to fast forward through all the marketi

How is HD saving TV? Are people really stupid enough to think that if they watch the same crap, but in a higher resolution, it will be good? I have a TV in my flat, but only use it to watch the occasional DVD (most of the time would watch on my PC). I watch TV when I go home as we have satellite, so there's actually a chance there wont be something crap on, or I can watch MTV2, etc. I think the problem with TV is that, unlike a book, DVD, or single player computer games, it never ends. Multiplayer gaming te

Well if this were to happen. I would be one of the first to make a counter hardware device that sits between the cable box and the tv that switches that flag off in the signal. For the flag to work, it would have to sit in a predictible place in the signal's bit-stream, so you just make a tv commercial-flag-bridge to take the signal in, modify the flag, and spit it out. That way the tv would always think it was on a show, and never in a commercial.

Then they better also ensure that the power supply for the TV and set-top box are hardwired into the wall, and that the mains fusebox is protected by a combination code. Otherwise, some knucklehead customers are going to switch off the entire setup at whatever access point is available, just out of principle.

However, I think that "my competitor voted for the law thats forcing you to watch commercials" may then become one of the best campaign slogans ever. People will be genuinely, extremely, pissed off if they lose the ability to channel surf during commercials. Theres no need to be technically savy at all to grasp the impact of this. The people will actaully be mad as hell over this one, and they will know it is the politicians that will have sold them out.An interesting side effect off this, though, is th

This doesn't really have anything to do with the government right now - isn't it the actual broadcasters that benefit from advertising? What does the government have to gain from you being forced to watch an ad for the latest shampoo+conditioner? If they forced political broadcasts to over-ride every other channel for an hour a day then maybe you could blame the politicians.

It's also good that other companies would have to pay licensing fees to use this technology - hopefully no other manufacturers would

What if I am flicking around the channels (from a sanctioned spot) and happen upon a commercial, will I not be able to continue to the next channel?

Well, as always consider who gets to make this decission, and whether or not it's in their interests. Is it in the interests of Channel XYZ to get these extra eyeballs on their commercials? Damn straight. Of course, when it happens it will be "accidental". Honest.

Rememember, with TV YOU are the product. The TV company is essentially selling your time to the advertisers. In exchange for your time, they promise to entertain you.

Personally, I'd be for this system if (and only if) subscribing to the non-ad version completely removes all advertising. But that is never going to happen.

I remember the days when technology was exciting. Every new product promised so much possibility and opportunity. Hell, some of them even made me want to run out and buy the thing.
These days, however, new technology just leaves me feeling sick. I find myself buying more and more tin foil, holding on to my relics of the 90's and talking about the good old days when a computer and a fast connection could get you anything but in trouble.
But what can your average/. reader do? I suppose I should just settle my suit with the RIAA, buy another DVD copy of Dr. Strangelove because the first is too scratched up to play, hope Sony's rootkit will magically remove itself from my computer, and watch another 22 minutes of commercials in a half-hour re-run of Seinfeld.

Why don't they just do what the radio stations in my area seem to do:
Have every station (that has ads) have the exact same commercial schedule. That way, whenever you switch channels, you would get commercials, just different ones. If I am listening to the radio I dont bother to switch channels during commercials because I know I am just going to get more commercials...
I for one would surf on over to CSPAN or PBS to stick it to the man. (With my luck it would be pledge week on PBS- but hey, I could get a

... and if some idiot left it on the shopping channel or some other hour-long "info-mertial" pops up, you're fuxored. And you won't be able to change channels when its finished, because they'll be running... commercials!!!!!

What ads? I use a DVR that auto skips commercials. I don't watch live TV anymore. Everything is recorded and commercial flagged. Besides not having to suffer watching commercials repeatedly I save lots of time by eliminating 15 to 18 minutes from every hour show.

Alex: No. No! NO! Stop it! Stop it, please! I beg you! This is sin! This is sin! This is sin! It's a sin, it's a sin, it's a sin!Dr. Brodsky: Sin? What's all this about sin?Alex: That! Using Ludwig van like that! He did no harm to anyone. Beethoven just wrote music!Dr. Branom: Are you referring to the background score?Alex: Yes.Dr. Branom: You've heard Beethoven before?Alex: Yes!Dr. Brodsky: So, you're keen on music?Alex: YES!Dr. Brodsky: Can't be helped. Here's the punishment element perhaps.....If a man c

Quick, someon patent a technology that makes me unable to get up and take a dump while commercials are playing. Maybe a special chair that's required while watching TV. When the commercials come on, metal rings bolt my arms and legs to the chair so I can't get up. Then, a little robotic arm comes out of the headrest and holds my eyelids open so I can't close my eyes. The volume on the TV is autoatically turned up so that I am unable to think of anything else while I am bombarded with the new Chili's advertisement.

It's nice to finally see someone in the corporate IT world step up and protect the customers! I've been waiting for years for someone to come up with a decent method of managing my digital rights, and this looks like just the ticket!

Anyone know how long it'll take before this is ready for retail? I want to get in early on the pre-orders - this is going to sell out pretty fast.

What we really need to do is start standing up for ourselves as customers (note: not "consumers") by refusing to buy such a thing regardless of whether it can be hacked or not. Philips (and Sony, and Microsoft, and all the other companies that do shit like this) should lose our business just for trying to screw us over!

Fuck you. The commercials are the stupidest part of my television-watching experience. Everytime a commercial break happens, I feel my intelligence is insulted. The idiots ensure that the commercials are as annoying, as loud, as irritating as possible in the chance that I might pay attention and buy whatever it is they are pushing, kinda similar to when you visit some neighborhoods in Detroit, and the pimps and pushers start trying to hawk their wares to whoever will listen.

Best example: Matthew Lesko, the screaming asshole who hawks the book full of gubbermint programs to help you go to college, get a job, get money to pay your bills, etc. This idiot runs around in a coat covered in $-signs, looks like Waldo of "Where's Waldo" fame, and SCREAMS ABOUT HOW MUCH HE'S GOING TO HELP ME FIND MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO GET A CIRCUMCISION OR BOFF MY WIFE NEXT WEEK OR USE CAT FECES AS AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCE.

Second best example: Recently, Burger King started a commercial campaign to promote a new chicken sandwich. To do so, the commercial starts this slow music with lyrics that go like this:

Big.... buckin' chicken...You are big... and you are chicken...Big... Buckin' chicken...

The commercial features some clown in a chicken suit with a saddle on its back and another idiot riding in the saddle, probably a midget. I work from home, usually leaving the television on, tuned to Spike TV, since there's like a 5 hour marathon of ST:DS9 and ST:TNG reruns, which seem like heaven when compared with the rest of the afternoon fare. Spike ran this commercial at every break during that 5 hour marathon every weekday for the entire months of January through March. On my wife's days off, it was a race to see who could grab the remote the fastest to at least mute the idiocy that was that commercial. Since then, I've vowed never to eat at a Burger King again.

So, now they want to extort money from me to have control over an appliance I've paid upwards of $400 to $1000 US for? Fuck you, you assholes. I'll toss the bleedin' thing in the garbage and start pirating even *more* movies than I do from USENET. It's getting so that I really don't need the TV any more.

I work from home, usually leaving the television on, tuned to Spike TV, since there's like a 5 hour marathon of ST:DS9 and ST:TNG reruns, which seem like heaven when compared with the rest of the afternoon fare. Spike ran this commercial at every break during that 5 hour marathon every weekday for the entire months of January through March.

Being in a similar situation, I certainly understand. I too work from home and I need some video noise to help me through the day sometimes. But I do it in a different way. I have a second monitor which is routinely playing TV shows. I've been re-running entire series (Did all the Star Treks last year, on the 3rd season of Northern exposure right now).

I like the noise, but commercials would actually distract me from work. No way I'd put up with that. I recommend you try getting commercial free versions of your favorite shows. I won't comment on where to get them...

I recommend you try getting commercial free versions of your favorite shows. I won't comment on where to get them...

I've heard that there are these mythical places called "stores", which can provide commercial-free versions of television shows in exchange for money. They're even nice enough to provide you with a tidy box to keep the shows in. The only problem is that there are a few shows I would like to give them money for, but which they never seem to have, such as Max Headroom.

for all the content you want to watch. Leaving to one side all the DRM arguments it actually costs quite a bit of cash to make a decent TV program. Either you pay through public subscription - like the TV license fee here in the UK, or you pay via advertising. And if you pay via advertisong then it's down to the advertisers to say what ads they want to show.

And the annoying ones - they're the ones that work. Ask any Brit about the most annoying add ever and you'll hear 'shake'n'vac' mentioned. Ask any Bri

"So who exactly is going to pay for all the content you want to watch."Maybe the advertisers will? Just a thought. Seriously, they seem to have no problem paying the broadcasters under the current system, where everyone's free to change the channel whenever they want.

I'm so sick of this sort of whining. "Oh no! The poor broadcasters! If you aren't forced to sit through the advertisements, where will they get thier money?" The fact is, we haven't ever been forced to sit through the advertisements in th

The point is that with current Mom and Pop technology they are de-facto forced to watch the ads. OK, strictly speaking they could get up and leave the room, or channel surf for a few minutes but if you're trying to follow the plot then you have to stay with the channel.

On the other hand new technology, which hasn't percolated down to Mom and Pop level yet but soon will will allow all the viewers to skip the ads, not just the tech savy ones. The advertisers will say, with good reason, why waste money on TV a

Wait, let me get this straight. You feel your intelligence is insulted when you see the commercials? Do you even pay attention to the content?! I understand there are some genuinely good, thougth provoking shows out there, but the other 99% of brainwave-ironing crap is just as worthless as the commercials. That's why I stopped watching TV. The commecials were so GOD AWFUL that it wasn't even worth muting the TV anymore. I haven't seen more than two hours of TV in the last 5 months. I feel better ever

My first thought when I read your post was,what the fuck is this guy watching that he see's that $ suit guy constantly. I've seen that- maybe twice, and yes- it is distinctive.. but I couldn't imagine my tv habits being such that I'd see that commercial often.then you identify that you have on, apparently most weekdays, five hour marathons of ST shows.

I think the shows you are watching should be insulting to your intelligence.. to the degree in which you are watching them.

So, now they want to extort money from me to have control over an appliance I've paid upwards of $400 to $1000 US for?

Dear User,
We understand your concerns and will forward it to our customer complaint department at the local sanitation department. As a temporary solution we suggest that you buy one of our improved TV models. These models, which are the same as yours, range in the price of $1600-$4000 but have the added benefit of allowing you to change channels during commercials

We do want you to enjoy your TV experience, but the added cost of TV production has given the need for this new technology.

Sincerely,

TV Customer Service

P.S. You will be getting a knock on your door from the FBI for attempting to circumvent our commercial broadcasting experience.

It may not be a patent filed by the broadcasters, but they will be the executioner in the business model described by this patent. You have a point as I would consider that post to be more insightful than interesting.

Every month when my cable bill comes in, I pay a fee, I should be able to time shift and skip any commercials I want, I pay nearly $80 per month for all the bells, whistles, and channels I get and by god I feel like that gives me all the right I need to skip the stupid commercials.

Product placement is gonna get more and more common and intrusive as the old way of just showing commercials becomes less and less profitable. Wait till people stop mid show, hold up a bottle of dawn and smile and say how much they love how it makes their hands feel. What's old is new again.

Originally, cable TV promised that you wouldn't even have commercials to begin with. The fact that you're still subscribing even though they are showing you commercials only proves that they can do whatever the fuck they want, and you'll bend over and take it!

I remember in the early 80's here in Canada, Rogers Cable offered "Pay Television" whereby you pay them for a cable hookup, and enjoy television without commercials... that's why it costed money. The rabbit ears hookup only showed commercials for the sake of covering broadcasting costs.

What happened? How incredibly greedy can people become? Television shows make millions, and cable providers make millions, etc. etc.

I remember they once talked about showing ads while shows aired, an almost Truman Show-esque "Joey drinks Coca-Cola" while watching Friends.

And now they wonder why people pirate television programs, movies, games, music, etc.? Because it has become not only inconvenient to watch, use, or play due to the number of advertisements in everything nowadays, but we are PAYING for them.

Just like buying clothes at the Gap, and billboarding their logo to everyone, what's next? Car Insurance companies will require you to paste their logo on your car? Or how about when you see the dentist? Will they make you wear a hat pointing downward saying "This smile brought to you by Dr. Dentafark".

Now possibly moving outward to an off-topic, but people question why youth today are so different, have a look at how many advertisements they see, and wear every day!

"I remember they once talked about showing ads while shows aired, an almost Truman Show-esque "Joey drinks Coca-Cola" while watching Friends."That's pretty much how it was in the 1950's. A lot of advertising was accomplished using product placement, or even cheesy game shows whose entire purpose was to promote a product. There's a great clip out there of Fred and Barney of the Flintstones, stopping mid-show to take a Marlboro break, and extoll the virtues of its flavor. And this was radio, but what about

You're right. I actually never thought about that. How interesting that they made so many product references back then, but got away with it because it was just so suave in how it was delivered.What upsets me about commercialism nowadays is that it's obnoxious; yes, Fred and Barney stopped for a smooth and rich Marlboro break, but they never said "Smoke these, and girls will love you, you disgusting bastard!". Commercialism nowadays tells you that Axe Deodorant makes you attractive, and girls' makeup is nec

As with some aspects of Hollywood and DRM, it's just a patent to shore up a dying economic model by attempting to use coercion rather than choice. If implemented, it will simply create a huge amount of ill will and do nothing to change the fact that the traditional broadcast TV model is on the way out. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before one of the industry's tame politicians introduces a bill saying that not watching adverts is unpatriotic and must be made a criminal offence toute suite. Then we can all see grannies being carted off to jail for skipping the latest news about fruit-flavoured douches and even shinier floor polish.

With TV viewership declining and TV execs scrambling to find a way to retain the remaining viewers and attract more, I cannot think of a better strategy. I can imagine the discussion now..

"Should we try to improve the quality of the programming? No screw that, let's roll out a few dozen more reality shows and then really piss them off by locking their TVs during commercials." Or maybe it is a threat: Amercia better start watching more TV or next we will start selling TVs that bitch slap you every time you get up to head to the kitchen (although there may be an innovative weight loss plan there)

I guess the TVs that add this patented feature will target the same customers who purchase Windows Vista. You know the kind, they feel as though what they currently own has way too many features and capabilities and are eager to pay more for something that includes a lot of technical restrictions on what they can do.

A few months after Philips are manufacturing these things, you know that Daewoo will start buying the same chipset. One quick firmware hack later, you will have a telly that automatically changes channels for you when the adverts come on. Or a DVD+RW recorder that automatically puts chapter marks fore and aft of every piss-break.

I mean, seriously..... come on. If there is ever a reliable way to distinguish advertising from editorial content {such a thing actually was nearly mandated in the UK once but was rejected}, then it will end up being used in ways that benefit the consumer more than the advertiser.

Also, I don't see what there is to grant a patent against. Either there's already a spec for an "advertisement" flag, in which case making use of it to enforce viewing of advertisements should be obvious; or there isn't a spec for an "advertisement" flag, in which case introducing such a flag would be obvious. Patent application is invalid on grounds of obviety either way. Ting! Next, please.

I was visiting the US recently (from the UK) and tried to watch TV. I just couldn't bear it - the adverts were just so frequent and intrusive that I had wandered off and started browsing the web by the time the show came back on. And these guys want to make that *worse* by removing the option of just flicking channels? Stupid in the extreme.

We got Sky digital in my home about 2 years ago. We (well my Dad. I'm still a poor student) have to pay about 60 a month and that's not even the "Sky+" thingy. I can't believe how many ads are on, especially compared to the terrestrial TV! It feels like we're paying loads of money to watch a bunch of ads. The majority of the programmes are crap, the good programmes are all repeats. The films are shown about 3 times a day. I know when I move out, there's no way in hell I'm gonna fork out that money for crap.

The technology and the patent for sure it real, but there is no reason to be upset. Philips (I think?) have no power of broadcasting per se and the technology will only be in their box. Their idea is that various companies will bundle their box with TV sets or special offers and that the customers will recieve the box for free. If they do not like the "feature" they can always buy another box which will allow them to zap away from the ads.
Of course, in the future this patent might prove to be worth Gold

I think the point is that while budgets for most shows are dropping (hence reality TV etc.), the amount of advertising and its degree of intrusiveness are going up. From the point of view of a viewer, that's not a very good deal.In the long term, it's not even very good for the advertisers or the networks. While cramming in more adverts may produce greater profits in the short term, by making TV less attractive they are making alternatives (DVDs, WWW etc) more appealing, so long term it may actually reduce

I would really like to know exactly what this
technology is about because I see it in two contexts, one
annoying, and the other evil (and maybe not legal?).

I can't tell from the article if this technology relates to
constraining a viewer to watch commercials when watching a
pre-recorded show, i.e., something on a Personal Video Recorder
(like a Tivo), or if this is something that prevents a viewer
from channel surfing while a channel breaks for commercials.

The former (pre-recorded show viewing) is something I've heard
about for a long time, for example I've heard Tivo has played
with instantiating "popup" ads if you fast forward through
commercials while watching a recorded show. Regardless, while
this is annoying, I guess it's their call -- but for sure, it'll
cut back on how much I'm watching -- it's already borderline for
what I find tolerable with encroaching advertising (product
placement, etc. -- anyone see the pandering "sidekick" product
placement in Tuesday's Gilmore Girls? For Heck's sake, it was
actually written into the script!).

However, if this is about locking in to a station during
commercial breaks, I would be (and I assume the viewing public)
outraged! How dare they. Aside from the
egregious nature of this, I can't imagine it would be a legal
tactic. Certainly any potentially "competing" channel would be
up in arms over something like this, unless of course there is
future collusion to ensure commercials are all aired at exactly
the same time, thus attenuating the incentive to surf during
commercial breaks.

The whole concept that broadcasting should be funded by advertising is what has brought about this ludicrous war. In the good old days specialist magazines carried loads of ads, and this was one of the things you bought them for: being able to find the manufacturer of the widget you needed.

Then Google came along and now you could look for stuff you really wanted or needed. Broadcasting advertising is mostly for stuff you wouldn't want and for which someone is trying to create a demand. So you resist watchi

...when these TV shows show up on DVD, will they have commercials embedded in them that can't be skipped over? It seems like the next natural step. Is this then going to migrate to web content? Sounds like a kind of DRM-in-disguise, only instead of keeping you from altering the content, they're keeping you from watching the content the way you want.

If I am flipping through channels and find myself unable to switch away from a commercial, or turn up or down the volume, I will use the big red OFF button to solve the problem. And if that is also disabled I'm likely to put my foot through the display and never use the thing again. Just an FYI.

as well as leaving the room, turning off the TV, playing a handheld game, recording the show and speeding through the commercials. My family uses all of these techniques today. Most if not all of them will work even with the Phillips patent.On a side note, there was a study a few months ago that showed that people that fast forward through commercials retained the same amount of information from the commercials as those that watched them as they played. The conclusion of the study is that advertisers sho

Each day, as I read more and more about how content providers are trying to control our view habits, I am reminded of the old Max Headroom show where Corporations ruled and Ratings were more important than anything else.

Here's a scenario. A small chiild wakes up in the middle of the night and walks into the living room where the parents are watching TV. While there, a Girls Gone Wild ad comes on the screen, which the parents decide they don't want their child to see. With this technology, they'd be screwed. One would hope the power could simply be turned off, but what if that feature is disabled too? One would hope the TV could be unplugged, but what if TV manufacturers start installing batteries or capacitor-banks to provide just enough juice to run the unit for a single commercial?

There is a rule in user-interface design that says the user must always be in control. Unfortunately, the quest for bigger profits seems to be redefining who the user is, taking control away from the consumer and giving it to the producer.

Welcome to the consumer driven society that the western world holds to such acclaim. However I dont agree with you

I recently had to travel to North Korea (don't ask... work related) much as I had to travel to the former Soviet Union, and billboards are noticeable by their absence. These places look dull. Even though we have advertising forced on us 90% of the time advertisements are (usually) asthetically pleasing, vibrant and a sign of economic growth.

Are people really pushed to buy a product based on ads they are exposed to? Personally I have become pretty good at ignoring billboards and ads in the paper. Same with ads on web pages. As for the TV, the DVR skips them for me so I rarely see any ads on the TV anymore. And back in the dark ages when I did not have a DVR I would read or do something else during the commercial breaks. I know lots of money is spent on advertising but just how effective is it? Or should I ask, how many people run out a bu

Who's talking content? We own the hardware. That includes the remote and the controls on the TV.Who owns my remote? Me, or the content provider? If I want to change the channel and watch something else, that's my right.

Until my TV comes with a EULA stating that I am not buying the hardware, and that I'm just licensed to use the hardware however Fox network sees fit. And that is the day I stop buying TV's.

> I suppose the broadcasters could encode their signal such that it wouldn't play on a TV that didn't cooperate but then they might find themselves frozen out of the market.

I don't think people would be changing their TVs overnight just to get this brilliant feature anyway.;-)

And suing for missing something (*anything*) on TV is just stupid. Almost as stupid as suing for accidentally seeing a Jackson nipple on TV. Besides, anybody stupid enough to buy a TV with this feature deserves to miss any and all

Not quite; instead of giving users more freedom by expanding entertainment devices into general-purpose computers, they're now trying to restrict freedom by locking down computers so that they're not really general-purpose anymore, but are instead controlled by DRM. For example, see this, Treacherous Computing, Intel's VIIV DRM platform, the Broadcast Flag, Microsoft Windows Media Center that restricts what you can do with the recordings, the fact that cable-ready HDTV tuners don't exist because they're no